A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco International

[bananaskins767]

Im thinking that the late (very late) application of power saved people as well. If indeed that is the case.

I agree with you on this 2.5.....Too late to save the entire show but enough to have saved many lives.

[Colonel Sanders]

I really doubt that the intent of cockpit automation
was to create 10,000TT pilots who can't hand-fly
the aircraft, but that is inarguably what has happened.

The really sad thing about this accident is that the
inevitable, knee-jerk result will be that all pilots will
be forbidden to ever hand-fly the aircraft, thus
completing the Spiral of Pilot Skill Doom (tm).

Yet more cockpit automation will be considered the
true thinking man's (groundpounder) solution to a
lack of fundamental pilot skill. Sigh.

It's unfortunate that as a result of this completely
avoidable accident, instead of addressing the root
cause, steps will be taken to make it worse.

It's a pity that during training, pilots can't be taught
to fly the aircraft, as well as operate the toys. I
guess there just isn't enough time to train a pilot
properly, any more.

My views are hopelessly antiquated, but I believe
that passengers are owed both belts and suspenders:
Pilots who can both fly, and operate the automation.

[Dash-Ate]

Odd video. Young pax giving a media interview. Then three cops flank him - watch their eyes very nervous - then another official whisks him away.

One of only two pax ever interviewed on media?
Besides that one twitter pic posted here the day of, of the evac, any other pics you've seen from pax? Would like to see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5D235xKhS4

All I'm thinking is how fast this one was "solved" in the media...while we're still awaiting a credible First Air explanation for Resolute incident?

[Joe Blow Schmo]

Interesting to see that the NTSB said the autothrottle arm switches were on (as they should be). Even if the A/T was disengaged at the thrust levers it would remain armed and activate itself to recover from a slow speed situation long before the stick shaker. I can only think of 2 ways this wouldn't happen: Either it was malfunctioning or the captain was physically holding the thrust levers back and overpowering the A/T. Still doesn't excuse the crew for not monitoring the airspeed but I am wondering why the low speed protection didn't kick in.

[Colonel Sanders]

Response to UAL retired captain:

I did training for Chinese students who are now mostly flying the 737 or A320 and everything this guy says is spot on. It's scary how accurate this post is to my own experiences.

When I taught them they could rote memorize just about anything. They were some of the best students on the ground that I've ever had. If I asked them "tell me what 91.213 says" they would spit it out perfect word for word. If I asked them to explain to me what we should do if we come out to the plane and a landing light is burnt out they would stare at me dumbfounded. They had no idea how to apply the information they memorized.

His story about the pilots having a website and posting sim instructor gouges is almost for sure 100% accurate. I worked at a place much smaller than KAL and Asiana and the students all had books of gouges that they kept on every check airman. They would even brag about them and were willing to show the instructors those books. Their gouges would list every question that every student had ever been asked in an oral from each check airman, and what they liked to do on the checkrides. The students would then just study those questions and memorize the answers. Most students I had who failed would give the excuse "he asked me something that wasn't on the gouge."

He's right about crosswind landings. Even my best students couldn't figure it out. It got to the point where most of them would cancel checkrides (even commercial) if there was anything above a 5kt crosswind even if the weather was 10 and clear.

I know, I know, only "cowboys" learn basic aircraft
handling, any more. If you learn stick & rudder skills,
you're an Illinois Nazis, according to avionics techs:

[slowstream]

A lot of interesting comments here, if I may I will add just a few thoughts.

-Although I thought the name calling BS would get worse it didn't, there was never a need for it in the first place. This is why Monday morning quarterbacking is often foolish, people don't have all the facts. People want to rush in and speculate, cast blame and pass judgement, I guess maybe its human nature, I know I have certainly been guilty of it too.

-I can't remember and I am too lazy (sorry) to go back and see who wrote it but yes Capt. Sully is a class act and as he said to the media it's way too early to speculate and it is certainly not appropriate to pass blame, otherwise we don't learn and we unable to fix things.

-I freaking hate American media, enough said

- I disagree with the comment stating that because of this accident that there will be even less hand flying happening. I will admit that there will likely be several airlines (mostly Asian) that will push for that, but I believe there has been a change over the past couple of years here in North America in the training departments of airlines to push crews to do a little more hand flying. I believe airlines have become aware that unless crews hand fly regularly that their skills with that decline a fair bit. Although its always been emphasized about FMA calls I think there has been an increased push over the past few years about making the FMA call but awareness of what the FD and AP are doing to your aircraft.

-Lastly, I've spent enough time down there, culture plays a huge roll in the flight deck and everywhere in Asia, no matter what's written or said. Trying to take culture out of them is like asking an aviation forum not to play Monday Morning Quarterback after an accident, it can't be done.

[Bede]

Probably the best analysis out of the news media about this crash. It's too bad the media can't find someone like this to do all their aviation stories.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... -carry-on/

[slowstream]

Probably the best analysis out of the news media about this crash. It's too bad the media can't find someone like this to do all their aviation stories.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... -carry-on/

100% agreed

[YYZSaabGuy]

Probably the best analysis out of the news media about this crash. It's too bad the media can't find someone like this to do all their aviation stories.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... -carry-on/

That's because he's busy flying (for DHL, last time I checked), and blogging at http://www.askthepilot.com. Agreed, Bede, he's pretty good.

[YYZSaabGuy]

I see ALPA is now jumping on the TSB for releasing details regarding its investigation - see http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/0 ... ash-probe/:

Air Line Pilot’s Union Criticizes NTSB Handling Of SFO Crash Probe (July 9, 2013 7:04 PM)

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — A pilots’ union issued a statement Tuesday criticizing the National Transportation Safety Board for the way the agency is releasing information about the crash at San Francisco International Airport Saturday.
Air Line Pilots Association International, which represents more than 50,000 pilots from 33 airlines in the U.S. and Canada, called the release of information about Asiana Flight 214 “ill-advised.”
The statement said the NTSB reports about the investigation, crash and other details are “incomplete” and “out-of-context.”
The union stated that the details released to the media and public have “fueled rampant speculation about the cause of the accident” and that the pilots on the flight have had little opportunity to provide details about what happened.
The union has called on the NTSB to examine the full chain of events leading to the accident and to gather a full body of knowledge before releasing information.
NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said at a news briefing Tuesday afternoon in South San Francisco that the information the agency is providing is consistent with other investigations after accidents in other modes of transportation.
She said the NTSB works for the traveling public and “one of our hallmarks is our transparency.”
But she said the probable cause will not be determined while workers are still on the scene and that a full analysis is far off. She advised the media to be cautious speculating on the cause of the crash.

[Expat]

Something occurred shortly before the accident ... that they weren't expecting, approximately at "500 feet" / "134kts".

From 1400 feet to 200 feet they lost 58knots of airspeed (AS) while only losing about 26kts of groundspeed (GS).

By 500 feet the AS started to get slower than GS, by 200 feet was about 10kts below ... in clear/stable air ... with a minor crosswind/headwind of 6kts-only shown them on the ATIS.

They crashed at approximately 11:30. I spent some time on beaches, and can attest that around lunch time, on a hot day, the low wind switches from shore to sea. This may explain the sudden loss of airspeed...
If you did any parasailing on a hot beach, you would know.

[x_atc]

The standard arrival puts you directly overhead at 11,000 feet for a downwind left or right, and then they turn you base when they feel like it, and assign you a visual when you haven't asked for it.

ATC can assign a visual regardless of whether or not you've requested one. What's your point?

And I suspect that there's more criteria associated with the turn onon base than "when they feel like it". ATC is not a random series of events, especially in highly congested airspace like that.

Surely you know better than to make such statements if you actually have the experience that you claim to have.

[CID]

I disagree with some of the view expressed here regarding "culture" and I'd like to explain further. Aviation authorities around the world work hard on developing international standards that allow the various airlines to occupy not only their domestic airspace but foreign airspace as well.

Various international agreements document the privileges of foreign airlines over our airspace. If any airline is going to suffer from "cultural" deficiencies that are related to the race and origin of the pilots it is our failing to allow them into our airspace.

If a particular airline has a poor safety record, whatever the reason, it's responsibility of the various international authorities to sanction them. Under this system, "culture" only plays in to it if it's a company culture or a airworthiness authority culture. Not racial culture.

These dubious bleating from people who are "in the know" are just exposing their inability to communicate or their racial prejudices. Statistically, there is no direct evidence that accidents are related in any way to the race or ethnic culture of the pilots or airliners that enjoy the privilege of operating in places like the US, Canada and Europe.

All the anecdotes of outrageous behaviour of "foreign" pilots can be easily matched by anecdotes regarding pilots in Canada, the US and all over the world.

I, for example, there are a couple of well known operators in Canada whose aircraft I wouldn't ride in if you paid me. Yes, it's a "culture" thing. Not an ethic or racial culture. A company culture.

As far as automation goes, comparing "hands on" flying between small aircraft and large airliners is apples and oranges. Large airliners operated under airline operating rules simply enjoy the best safety records of any aircraft operation segment in the industry. That safety record is in large part due to the automation incorporated in modern airliners that reduces the workload to a level where 2 pilots can manage without a navigator and an radio operator and a flight engineer on board.

Without that automation it would be impossible to operate modern airliners within their performance envelope with any consistent safety. If that means that airline pilots can't do manage aerobatics, so what? There are probably plenty of pilots who started their careers in the major airline on big iron that wouldn't do so well on a Turbo Otter in the bush but guess what...there are plenty of bush pilots who couldn't make the cut to fly large airliners. Apples and oranges.

It wasn't that long ago that all 747s had a flight engineer station and you can imagine that when things go sideways on the 2-crew 747-400 the workload can increase quickly. Comparing the hand-flying of a 777, landing at 240 tons with a Vref of 137 against a Pitts or a 172 that "cruises" at that speed? Don't even start.

[spaner]

You view is narrow, and antiquated at best, I'd say by 10, years.

SnapShot-10.jpg (87.89 KiB) Viewed 3208 times

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3kREPMzMLk&t=+23m



I can't believe even half the stuff I'm reading lately...

[boeingboy]

None of the passenger seats were ejected from the aircraft. The six uninjured flight attendants were interviewed and reported that after the aircraft came to a stop, one of the flight attendants at 1L went to the cockpit and checked with flight crew whether an evacuation should be initiated, the flight crew instructed to not initiate the evacuation. The flight attendants at 2R saw fire outside the aircraft near seat row 10, consistent with the position of the right hand engine's position adjacent to the fuselage, and initiated the evacuation. 90 seconds after the aircraft came to a stop door 2L closely followed by 1L opened and the evacuation began. 120 seconds after the aircraft came to a stop the first emergency responders arrived on scene, about 150 seconds after the aircraft came to a stop the first fire agent was applied to the right hand side by emergency services. Emergency services entered the aircraft with a hose and attempted to fight the fire from the inside of the aircraft as well as assisted in the passenger evacuation. While trying to liberate the pinned flight attendants emergency services observed fire coming in from the window/fuselage. The NTSB is probably going to release runway 28L to the airport within the next 24 hours. In an interview with Korean Authorities the pilot flying reported that a flash of light occurred at 500 feet which temporarily blinded him, the NTSB confirmed that this was mentioned in their interview as a temporary event, too.

So - why in gods name would you tell everyone NOT to evacuate after what you just went through!!!!!!

Head shakingly DUMB!

[Flying Nutcracker]

From Avherald:

On Jul 9th 2013 the NTSB reported in their third press conference based on pilot interviews, that they were requested to maintain 180 KIAS until 5nm out, then extended the flaps to landing configuration of 30 degrees (160 KIAS max speed), they were high descending through 4000 feet, set vertical speed mode at -1500fpm, at 500 feet AGL the PAPIs were showing three red one white and the pilot began to pull back on the yoke to reduce rate of descent assuming the autothrottles would maintain the speed set to 137 knots. A lateral deviation developed taking the attention of the crew.

So they were high at 4000 feet and were asked to maintain 180 knots until 5nm. Sounds like a usual occurrence at SFO when the wx is nice...

[North Shore]

^ So: Tired, Rookie on type, out-of-normal procedures, and got behind the a/c...

poor bastards..

[Indanao]

The Crew Training element is probably best addressed as per amount of experience. Hire a Pilot with 250 hrs for FO, and he/she doesn't have enough experience to handle an airliner if something goes wrong - or even do a hands on visual landing apparently. AND, they are very unlikely to ever have enough experience because they are teaching each other and most came to the Airline the same way. That FO worked for the Airline years before he got his Pilot License. But, with more airliners in the world requiring more Pilots it's not gonna get better. Some countries prefer not to hire foreign Pilots, e.g.: Canada. If it takes some mud slinging to get some change - sling mud. Or, you can remain politically correct - and make yourself look good. It's also funny how many refer to Sullenberger. He had no choice - his engines quit. It was the river or the buildings. Where would you go? What about the proper ditching preparation for the Airbus? Doesn't matter cause they all survived? Or, is it just another chance to jump on a band wagon. Put your ego aside and listen to those that have been there and observed first hand.

[pdw]

... the pilot flying reported that a flash of light occurred at 500 feet which temporarily blinded him, the NTSB confirmed that this was mentioned in their interview as a temporary event ...

What was it, a sharp sun reflection off the glassy water ... or a glint off the aircraft-aluminum holding short in the morning sun. A reflection off a mirror somewhere ?

If that was major factor, you'd think we'd have heard about it first ! It's very serious, to find out where it came from. Getting blinded can be very nasty, and why would they say that if it's not true. (There better be no stone left unturned in the quest for truth on that one.)

A late-day sun reflection sharply off a glassy Lake Superior blinded me in early spring a few years ago, just east of White River; couldn't see much at all for twenty seconds after, and some effects stuck around for a while longer.

[Gino Under]

In my estimation, culture will be an issue.
The cockpit culture, company culture, military culture mix (at Asiana) will likely be exposed (yet again) for what it is. Dangerous, like a loaded gun in the hands of a child.

The number of Level 4 English speaking pilots who NEED a translator is outrageous and as already suggested, it's about time we started to disallow some of these carriers who we've been trying to get to buy into CRM, TEM, human factors realities, SOPs, you name it, from flying into North America. We've been training and preaching this for more than two decades now. I suggest it's time to shorten the long winded approach and simply tell them to check their cultural issues at the door and start implementing some of these skills we've been trying to teach you for the last two decades!!!
"Check speed....Captain!!!"
See how that works for the level 4s in the crowd.
I suggest a few might find some interesting viewing on YouTube of ATC exchanges at KJFK. What a horror show.

As for visual approach clearances....
You don't have to accept a visual approach clearance and ATIS will always have an IFR approach in its broadcast. U.S. controllers are under pressure to maximize aircraft movements. The visual approach clearance is nothing more than a convenience for ATC, not you. Threat and error management 101. It reduces separation AND makes you responsible for wake turbulence avoidance. Threat and error management 101. A GPS to 28L with AP, AT, VNAV and VNAV PATH would have been a better option even in hindsight. Whether or not a manually flown visual approach is or should be within the normal ability of a pilot seems moot to me. Low time and new on type? Use the automation. Worry about your lack of manual flying proficiency on a new type later. Manually flying, new on a type like the 777 with less than 50 hours on type at the end of a 10 hour Pacific crossing, under the supervision of any check airman, flying into an airport you aren't familiar with? Probably NOT a good idea. Threat and error management 101.

Much is yet to be revealed and clearly, it's far too early for me and many others here to solve this mystery.

Gino

[pdw]

Comparing the hand-flying of a 777, landing at 240 tons with a Vref of 137 against a Pitts or a 172 that "cruises" at that speed?

No "comparing the hand-flying", just they all can be flown straight and level or climb and descend at a desired angle.

The 240 tonnes is more than 100 times the weight, but stalls at just double the stallspeed of a 172 at MTOW. The 777 has proportionately greater Bornouli at twice the airspeed across 50 times greater wing area; will cruise at twice the IAS of the 172 cruise-speed.

Can't get away from the fact this aircraft lost the battle with a vulnerable speed, which at some point affects every aircraft similarly.

[iflyforpie]

As far as automation goes, comparing "hands on" flying between small aircraft and large airliners is apples and oranges. Large airliners operated under airline operating rules simply enjoy the best safety records of any aircraft operation segment in the industry. That safety record is in large part due to the automation incorporated in modern airliners that reduces the workload to a level where 2 pilots can manage without a navigator and an radio operator and a flight engineer on board.

Without that automation it would be impossible to operate modern airliners within their performance envelope with any consistent safety. If that means that airline pilots can't do manage aerobatics, so what? There are probably plenty of pilots who started their careers in the major airline on big iron that wouldn't do so well on a Turbo Otter in the bush but guess what...there are plenty of bush pilots who couldn't make the cut to fly large airliners. Apples and oranges.

It wasn't that long ago that all 747s had a flight engineer station and you can imagine that when things go sideways on the 2-crew 747-400 the workload can increase quickly. Comparing the hand-flying of a 777, landing at 240 tons with a Vref of 137 against a Pitts or a 172 that "cruises" at that speed? Don't even start.

It is exactly that type of thinking that turned Asiana to a pile of burned wreckage on the runway, or caused Colgan to fall from the sky: that somehow these airplanes are different than light aircraft and that automation will save you.

And it has been demonstrated that hand flying skills can save a big jet as well: the Gimli Glider that side slipped, the Miracle on the Hudson that used minimum sink to give the most time to prepare for impact..... all things 14 year olds learn in a Schweitzer 2-33 in Air Cadets.

Airspeed is life...... no matter what fixed wing aircraft, period. An aircraft stalls at the critical angle of attack, period. You don't let airspeed decay at low altitude and you push the nose forward to keep the aircraft wing below the critical angle of attack.

There is no voodoo magic to these aircraft. The systems may be different, but they fly like anything else. Weight and momentum and lower drag can be anticipated and the speeds aren't radically different. Automation has made them more efficient for sure, but it is getting to the point where it is no longer making them safer.

The first jets did not have automation. I've worked on heavy jets within the last ten years with no auto throttles. When they are bombing fires with a DC-10 and Bird Dogging with a Citation, you can bet they didn't program it into their FMS...

[FICU]

The crew first blames the A/T and now a flash of light. Where was the PF's hand under 1000 feet... on the thrust levers or both hands on the wheel? A blinding flash of light would have been mentioned by the PF if in fact there was and would be recorded on the CVR.

What is their SOP with AP disengaged? Ours is when the AP off A/T must be off.

2 Captains and 1 F/O and no one monitoring thrust and airspeed an no call for a go-around. WTF?!

[Flying Nutcracker]

The crew first blames the A/T and now a flash of light. Where was the PF's hand under 1000 feet... on the thrust levers or both hands on the wheel?

I really shouldn't, but.... One hand covering his eyes???

[SheriffPatGarrett]

What else can you expect when the senior crews have less actual flying time than junior private pilots...
Someone even mentioned that some airlines SOP FORBID hand flying the plane.(Guaranteeing incompetent pilots
like those that crashed Air France over the south Atlantic over a mere malfunctioning pitot tube.)

Instead of pilots, you have IT clerks, whose configuration mistakes swiftly kill,
as per the first Airbus 320 crash in Mulhouse-Habsheim airport in 88
when the auto-pilot refused to add power as per the throttle position.

How long ago had this Asiana 214 crew hand flown any airplane?

It had to be VERY LONG AGO, for failing to add power when sinking like a stone...
Not one Cessna 140 pilot would do that mistake!

But expect these facts to be camouflaged and even denied by the powers that be
like Airbus that went as far as stealing and falsifying the flight recorders of the Airbus 320,
criminally sabotaging the inquiry and jailing the crew
to defend their total automation.
http://www.crashdehabsheim.net/CRenglish%20phot.pdf

As you see there, Airbus is lying and the crew right,
the engines are NOT putting out ANY power...no jet blast in the trees: